PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 2
If the government increases its funding for civilian(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AGovernments should bear(12 more words not shown)
- BAny increase in(15 more words not shown)
- CPrivate donations toward(12 more words not shown)
- DCivilian scientific research(11 more words not shown)
- EFunding for civilian(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
At first, I can see the concern. If private donors think the government will take care of the research, they may contribute less. The passage tells us that this decrease will happen, so we can accept it.
But what about the new government money?
A decrease in one source doesn't establish a decrease in the total. Suppose government funding rises by $10 while private funding falls by $5. Research ends up with $5 more, despite the private donors pulling back. Reverse those amounts—add $5 from the government and lose $10 privately—and total funding falls by $5. The missing comparison is between the money added and the money lost.
That's worth slowing down for. The chain about donors' beliefs explains why private contributions fall, but the conclusion concerns overall funding. We have to count both sources before accepting the recommendation.
What we’re looking for
For the required-assumption question, I'd look for the author to commit to the second kind of result: the private funding lost must outweigh the government funding added. Otherwise, discouraging private giving wouldn't by itself justify avoiding the increase as a way to prevent a drop in total funding.
Working the answers
- A
Who should bear most of the financial burden is different from what happens to the total. Someone could favor a large government role while still worrying that this particular increase would reduce overall funding. Or someone could prefer private funding for other reasons. The argument needs a comparison of amounts, not a general rule assigning responsibility.
- BCorrect
“Displace more ... than it would provide” means the private money lost exceeds the government money added. That's the comparison the argument needs. If the government adds $5 but its action drives away $10, the total falls, giving the stated reason to avoid the increase.
If an increase instead added more than it displaced, private contributions would still decline as the premises predict, but overall funding would rise. The author's warning about depressing the total would then lack its necessary connection. Notice that we compare changes in funding, not the total size of the government and private contributions.
- C
The premises explain the donors' decision to give less. They don't say researchers refuse private donations. Researchers could welcome every dollar while donors decided the government should supply it. Unwelcoming researchers are not required for the decrease described here.
- D
Research could be conducted efficiently with several funding sources and still lose total funding if private contributions fell by more than the government added. The argument concerns how much funding is available, not whether combining sources makes the research inefficient.
- E
The current total need not be the highest possible. Perhaps larger private donations could increase it. The author is warning about this proposed way of changing the funding, not claiming that no possible change could raise the total. A ceiling on all funding adds something the reasoning doesn't require.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.